The Inheritance

As is the case with most internet opinion factories: Prove it or stop defending. "In the tradition..." Blah blah blah.

Thi sis my very case in point - they rely on the ignorance and wistful acceptance of a gullible "anything is exposure" agenda.

Don;t attack the messenger - this forum is full of far more scholarly types than me - but I still challenge you or any other "Vehemently" types to actually DO THE WORK.

Case in point:

Even the seminole moment in the play , when he apes Froster to come to the line "The INheritance" is a direct plagirism of Tom Stoppard's Invention of Love - when Oscar Wilde's character does exaclty the same thing - in a conversation with AE Housemann -

Basically, Housmann calls Wilde an outlandish something or other - to which Wilde replies "At least, I LIVED!" -- then Wilde retors Hausemann: to the effect of asserting Hausmann is a moral failure and let down the cause (of gays I guess). Sound FAMILIAR?

Scotarts, you seem to have a personal vendetta against Matthew Lopez, and I am puzzled as to why. He has written a play that has been inspired by his predecessors (Crowley, Fierstein, Kramer, Kushner, Stoppard, Albee, etc.) He has not, in any shape or form, stolen material from anyone.

He has written a play about Drag Queens, "The Legend of Georgia McBride". Are you going to insinuate that he ripped off "Torch Song" and "La Cage Aux Folles", or even "The Birdcage"? Shall we rope in Elaine May into the list, too? Also, a play about Jewish Slaves in the post-Civil War South, "The Whipping Man".

The point I am trying to make is, this piece is entirely original, and just as beautiful. You may not like it, fine, but the claims of plagiarism are very flimsy and weak. Also, your consistent typos are not a plus for your argument. It just conveys, to me at least, a manic desire to expel your aggravation toward this piece.

Anyway, I don't wish to antagonize or anger, but I find your argument very perplexing, and it grows more so as the day goes on.

To anyone that is concerned about such accusations, read the piece, and make a determination yourself. :) They can be purchased through the publisher directly, Faber Drama, in the UK, or thorugh AbeBooks, Ebay, AmazonUK, and, soon, Amazon in the US. It is a sublime piece, and one that has deeply impacted my life, and the lives of many others. I have not fallen for any publicity tactics, etc, I saw this in March, prior to opening at the Young Vic in London, and the entire run of the play was almost sold out. I went because I loved "Georgia McBride" at the Lortel in NYC, knowing absolutely nothing about this piece, and I left a changed man. I went as a blank piece of paper, and came out all the colors of the rainbow. I am an example of how this piece is not, as Scotarts has claimed, powered by publicity. Seriously, read this play. It's FABulous.

You can get a copy of the play script at Drama Bookshop in NYC. That's where I bought my copy from a few months ago. I actually bought a few copies after reading it and gave them as holiday presents to a few friends who I think might enjoy it.

Even the seminole moment in the play , when he apes Froster to come to the line "The INheritance" is a direct plagirism of Tom Stoppard's Invention of Love - when Oscar Wilde's character does exaclty the same thing - in a conversation with AE Housemann -

I actually have no desire to read this play before I see it either here when it transfers or in London when I'm there next summer. And, frankly, I don't care if someone hates or loves this play. It means absolutely nothing to me. But arguing that middle aged playwrights in 2018 can't write plays about the AIDS epidemic is so flipping insane that it only underlines how unhinged the rest of the posts are from this user.

I certainly don't need to provide bona fides to anyone here but I'm a middle aged man who has performed in the works of Kushner, Fierstein and Kramer. Stop thinking you're giving me any kind of education. I've forgotten more about the theater than you've ever learned.

If you havenít seen the play but plan to, Iíd actually suggest NOT reading it before going. The published script omits a couple incredibly emotional parts, one of which, on paper, is about 3 sentences long but on stage goes on for several minutes and left me just devestated.

Using established tropes- even commonly-used ones- does not make a writer a plagiarist. And some of the things you list are so general that they could apply to dozens, if not hundreds, of other plays and works of fiction.

If youíre going by that reductive argument, you may as well accuse The Boys in the Band of ripping off Whoís Afraid of Virginia Woolf for depicting a bitchy, sadistic cocktail party.

Call the play derivative. Fine! But to say it is a work of plagiarism and imbue your argument with such vitriol? All that does is make you look like damaged goods.

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

I mean, I think the play is derivative, but I think it's part of the point. With its evident references to AiA, Love! Valour! Confession! etc, the play is putting itself in dialogue with previous gay plays, showing the inheritance of previous works of LGTB-themed theatre. The only time it gets a bit too much is when Tristan says goodbye before leaving for Canada - that's really a Belieze's rip-off

Angels in America, Love! Valor! Compassion! , etc are also all derivative works! Thatís the point! Thatís gay culture! Gay culture is taking what exists from the dominant culture and making it into something new and fabulous. Itís grabbing the story back.

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

If only there were some clue as to why The Inheritance would be influenced by gay plays of the past, given that it's a play about generations of gay men passing along their history. Hmm. Total mystery there.

I hope it also comes to New York but the play is not a sold-out house in the West End. When it was off-west end it was very hard to get a ticket but it seems like it's easier to get a ticket nowadays.

Wouldn't Vanessa Redgrave be the big name?

Boys in the Band did really well probably because of the all-star cast. Torch Song did really well off-bway but I'm not sure why it's not doing well now (perhaps timing? marketing?) Angels in America had big names too but it struggled in the box office (probably due to the length.)

The Ferryman's cast boasts zero starpower in the US, it is fairly long (not two parts, but still), and is about a topic most Americans have little familiarity with, and yet it is doing very well based on its prestige and word of mouth.

A limited run in a moderate-sized house on Broadway should do fine.

"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."

Jordan Catalano said: "Redgrave is in the show for about 15 minutes in part 2. You can’t sell this show on her (or any actor playing that part) name alone."

Sure you can. If they had Redgrave (or Judi Dench or Maggie Smith or any one of the old Grande Dames), people wouldn't care how long they were actually on stage in the show --- they'd just need to see her make an appearance.

qolbinau said: "Also agree. I’m surprised anyone would describe this as one of Redgrave’s finest moments on stage. Maybe I saw her on an off night but she seems far too old, tentative in the role, lines, accent and movement.

I am so glad I saw this and did enjoy myself, but if you are expecting this to be a life changing experience and the best theatre you’ve ever seen in your life I can’t help but predict many will be disappointed. It’s so not as important as the creative team and cast thinkit is. It mighthave been if we didn’t already have such high quality gay HIV-themed plays in the past."

I agree. I saw the show twice and both times she seemed to being fed lines via an earpiece or maybe just took way too long on her cues.